Harvard Pres.: Women so-so scientist.

<p>You have to wonder if the professors in the Engineering school feel the same way Summers does. Maybe they admit a few women into the program just to get coffee for the Manly Men of engineering.</p>

<p>I believe the President of Princeton is a woman scientist. Biology, I think. She must be rolling her eyes at Larry's depiction of women, and their potential in science and engineering.</p>

<p>I am citing no evidence - circumstantial or otherwise. I have no opinion on "the issue". </p>

<p>What irritates me is the attitude of you lefties that certain views are "dangerous" and that those who express them should be barred from the temple.</p>

<p>Your dark mutterings implying that Larry Summers is spewing Nazi genetic theories are absurd ... indeed those mutterings are themselves obscene.</p>

<p>Yes, Larry Summers is a god!</p>

<p>This man is great. After he stands up to the feminazis, what is next? Should Harvard limits the female students to the humanities, social sciences or nannying? Since Harvard still needs girls to make coffees for the professors, perhaps Harvard should limit the female students to 10%. It has proved that women have less brains than men as per Larry Simmers, why Harvard should admits girls? No wonder that only few wemen full professors were appointed last year.</p>

<p>How about those affirmative action extremists? It has proved that Whites have higher SAT scores that Blacks, I can't wait for Larry Summers to do something about it.</p>

<p>This man is great. He is turning the clock back 100 years single handed.</p>

<p>I did not say that Larry Summers is spewing Nazi racism. Read my post again, it was not "absurd". I instead gave an example on how theories from social trends can be dangerous when thought of as scientific before any scientific proof whether for or against is found. If you remember history (and I think from your age, you were probably there), the Nazi's did not think of women as genetically inferior. Women are not a race, rather a GENDER, there is a difference. I think you are taking this too personally for us to have a real debate on this. You view a criticism on Harvard as a criticism on you. I am sorry if I insulted you then.</p>

<p>Byerly, I had tried to keep my initial post very objective and focused. Yet you insist on interjecting personal criticisms, referring to me as as an "ayatollah" and "feminazi," and describing my "type" as an "craven, self-censoring, leftist intellectual party-liners."</p>

<p>Initial suggestion to you in response to this: if you are so childish and simple-minded that you need to resort to name-calling and personal criticism (of people whom you don't even know) rather than actual discussion, then perhaps you should re-consider posting on this type of board. Believe me, I know <em>plenty</em> of spoiled, brattish Harvard undergraduates who simply need to stick their faces back into the textbooks and avoid others. Based on your numerous self-congratulatory, arrogant, rah-rah Harvard posts on this board, you seem to think you know everything. And believe me, I know <em>many</em> Harvard undergraduates who act like that simply to cover up underlying insecurities. So grow up a little bit ... before you end up making more of a fool of yourself.</p>

<p>Back to the point: as president of a major university, Summers is an educator and is perceived as a leading spokesperson in this area. One of his jobs is to promote education and inspire his faculty and students. Unfortunately, regardless of whether his ideas have an scientific merit, it is simply contrary to the mission of a university for its president to suggest that 50% of its students are inherently less capable than the rest. If you are unaware, presidents of major corporations, baseball teams, and other non-"politically correct" areas have been fired for making implications such as this about specific sexes and ethnicities.</p>

<p>not to say i agree with the guy, but why is it perfectly acceptable for academics to assert that women have all these greater skills than men (problem solving, pain tolerance, social interaction, to name just a few i have heard on numerous occaisons), yet when one person asserts that just maybe men are better than women in something, its a terrible example of an ignorant chauvanistic pig?</p>

<p>once again, before anyone yells at me for supporting him (as often happens when a theoretical question is posed), i dont actually agree with his assertion.</p>

<p>When 30% or less of any year's Engineering class is female, you have to wonder if Harvard has a problem.</p>

<p>With all the handwringing and doomsaying going on from the lefties here, there can be no better evidence that academia is in need of a radical correction, and that Summers has come along at the right time. If he didn't exist, we should have to invent him.</p>

<p>The lefties - including those preaching the mantra here - clearly believe that anybody not automatically subscribing to their half-baked social notion that genetics means nothing and acculturation is everything is a bad person, a "dangerous" person, who should be <em>silenced</em> ! (Hear now the dark mutterings about "the Nazis," etc etc.)</p>

<p>"Fire him!" , shouts the self-proclaimed "Alum".</p>

<p>Thank God there are SOME places where dissent is tolerated - and even encouraged.</p>

<p>It's not that the topic is dangerous, that research has to be avoided to prevent some dangerous discovery about a superior gender. It's not dangerous, but it's just plain stupid to suggest that one gender is superior in science or math. Some females are not as good at math and science as some males. Some males are not as good at math and science as some females. So what if there are MORE scientific- and math-oriented males. That doesn't mean males are better at it (just that some males, just like some women, are good at it). Maybe there are fewer females of that type, but you can't say that those females aren't as good as the males of that type. In my own experience, I've seen no difference in numbers, even, but I know there is a difference in numbers on the whole. The difference in numbers on the whole: itsallgood and others, fewer women apply to engineering schools, but their acceptance rate is higher (should we assume, therefore, that women applicants are stronger? just kidding, let's not start a fight) to make up for number differences, but the higher acceptance rate isn't enough to make the complete difference to 50:50, so Harvard and all the other schools don't dislike female applicants. . . they just get fewer.</p>

<p>Byerly, first of all, calm down. You are exhibiting signs of paranoia.</p>

<p>Second, your argument is muddled and unsubstantiated. </p>

<p>How does
"all the handwringing and doomsaying going on from the lefties here"<br>
lead to
"there can be no better evidence that academia is in need of a radical correction, and that Summers has come along at the right time"?<br>
Your first statement does not lead to your second even though you write so. </p>

<p>Third, no one here is denying the strength of genetics. My eyes are brown because of genetics, not environment. And genetically einstein was probably better equipped than most to tackle science and math. But to say that all women are inherently inferior due to genetics is a completely different ballgame. Talking about individuals with born talents is fine. Making genetic generalizations especially WITHOUT EVIDENCE is dangerous, even if it comes as dissent from the mouth of your god (i.e. Larry Summers).</p>

<p>crimsonbulldog, does your screenname ever have feelings of not being able to fit in?</p>

<p>As a alumnus of both institutions, I thought it would be an appropriate name. But maybe I'll change it since I am getting many comments about it. Any suggestions?</p>

<p>"Evidence" , for you, seems to constitute the expression of views supporting your own predispositions. Questions asked by those who find your "evidence" less than convincing is (eeek!!) "dangerous". </p>

<p>Why, to disagree with the proposition that all people are not created equal in the physical, emotional, intellectual or genetic sense is (eeek!!) "to say that all women are inherently inferior due to genetics!!!"</p>

<p>Spare us, "crimsonbulldog" - two degrees don't seem to have doubled your tolerance for views other than your own.</p>

<p>You are wrong "Byerly" (Hall I presume). I never said nor implied what your last message said. And you have yet again not addressed my questions to you. You have consistently evaded questions and tried to confuse us with non sequiturs and personal insult (a childish response). I suggest to increase your dose of neuroleptics before continuing because it is obvious that your psychiatric disorders are getting the better of you.</p>

<p>I wish Byerly would change his screenname ... having him seem so closely affiliated with my school is kinda embarassing ...</p>

<p>I remember when people would argue--with the same sort of logic Byerly has used in this discussion--that blacks could not be excellent football quarterbacks. </p>

<p>Of course, that was back in the day before Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick and Daunte Cullpepper (and others) came along to put that to rest.</p>

<p>Okay, so we could wait for the female scientists and mathematicians to come along and put this topic to rest, or we could just. . . . look around right now.</p>

<p>Jono</p>

<p>EXACTLY. That's what makes Summers comments so astounding and ridiculous.</p>

<p>The big question is: Does Harvard discriminate against women when it comes to the Hard Sciences? When only 30% of Harvard engineering students are women, something seems fishy.</p>

<p>What about Math? What about Chem? What about Bio? What about Physics? Is there better representation of women in those majors? Hmmm.</p>

<p>Fishy" eh? And is the fact that females predominate in certain other majors also ... "fishy"????</p>

<p>Obviously the place is simple CRAWLING with conspirators, striving to crush all females (or males, depending on the major) !</p>

<p>You people are sickies.</p>

<p>Question: What exactly, is the "ideal" to be reached? 50% females in all fields, including engineering, (although there would, one assumes, be no alarms sounded if the percentage of males decended to 30% or lower in any field... ie, it wouldn't be deemed "fishy"?)</p>

<p>Exactly what is the female percentage of *engineering" degree winners at (a) MIT, (b) Caltech, (c) Stanford, (d) UIUC and (e) Cornell?</p>

<p>Wooooo! Anything "fishy" at those places ??!!</p>

<p>CONSPIRACY, I CRY!!!!</p>

<p>Look, get a grip: the only engineering program with a female majority is at Smith; and that program is now going to be "adopted" by another school in order to save it from extinction.</p>